(no title)
mlmlmasd | 9 years ago
If you want to go that route, then none of the advertising companies, or companies that make money from advertising are providing the content either. There are several steps before the content comes from some person's mind to your computer, the ISP is one of those steps.
> Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry?
You want me to explain how an initiative to not block a subset of ads alleviates the pressure from blocking all ads? Seems pretty trivial to me.
> This is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.
Nope. They did make it harder before, when they weren't taking money from advertising companies to not hide ads, and weren't launching initiatives such as the topic of this thread.
manigandham|9 years ago
There will not be an internet without ads. So that is not a logical or reasonable goal.
The very vast majority are fine with advertising but the current situation is out of hand - so yes, working on standards that everyone agrees on and moves forward with will create progress.
sgdread|9 years ago
To be fair, the monetization of "free" content should be done different way: utility payment model is the way to go. YouTube Red got it right, they just haven't pushed it all the way - eliminate ALL ads. Apple Music and Spotify got it right too.
As a customer, I have fixed amount of hours to spent in a day to consume content, so content providers have to compete for this time to get compensated. If you pay flat fee at ISP level, then it can distributed to content owners minus platform service fee. This way you don't stuff people with gazillions of non-relevant ads and there's natural flow to get higher quality content to attract customers to your site.
Ads are not needed to get "free" internet.
mlmlmasd|9 years ago
[deleted]